MILLER v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 25-719V
RENAE MILLER,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: November 24, 2025
Catherine Wallace Costigan, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On April 25, 2025, Renae Miller filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine
Act”). 	Petitioner 	alleges 	that 	she 	suffered 	a 	shoulder 	injury 	related 	to 	vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 7,
2023. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 19. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects
of her injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or
settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 21, 24-
45. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).
Case 1:25-vv-00719-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 2

2
On November 24, 2025, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he
concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that,
[the 	Division 	of 	Injury 	Compensation 	Programs] 	has
concluded that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with
SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically,
[P]etitioner 	had 	no 	history 	of 	pain, 	inflammation, 	or
dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain
occurred 	within 	forty-eight 	hours 	after 	receipt 	of 	an
intramuscular vaccination; pain and reduced range of motion
were 	limited 	to 	the 	shoulder 	in 	which 	the 	vaccine 	was
administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been
identified to explain [P]etitioner’s shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. §§
100.3(a), (c)(10). Additionally, based on the medical records
outlined above, [P]etitioner suffered the residual effects of her
condition for more than six months. Therefore, based on the
record as it now stands, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Act. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i), -13(a)(1)(B).
Id. at 4.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
Case 1:25-vv-00719-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 2